Yasser Arafat arrived in Hebron on 19 January and addressed a large crowd. He told them that "we have made a peace agreement with the entire Israeli people," citing the overwhelming majority for the agreement in the Knesset. He also called the Prime Minister "my friend." In the following interview the Prime Minister reacted to Arafats words and also stressed the changes and improvements he felt were made in this accord over the one negotiated by the previous government. Text:
Question: Were you satisfied by Arafats remarks yesterday in Hebron?
Prime Minister Netanyahu: I was much more satisfied with his remarks, which had a positive tone, than with Jibril Rajoubs remarks, which were very serious. We sharply protested and were assured that the tone would be different during Arafats visit the following day, and so it was.
Question: Did you and Arafat agree in the conversation which you had on the eve of the signing - that you had to speak in more conciliatory tones, and following this, Arafat said what he said in Hebron?
Prime Minister Netanyahu: I spoke with him about this. I told him that leadership projects on the masses. We each have a public which listens to us, a segment of which is certainly frustrated and angry. This is natural, especially with us, because people are anxious and concerned. All the time, theyre being told that, "Theyre abandoning you, and theyre leaving you." It is clear this is not the case, but when there is incitement, people may certainly think this is a possibility. And therefore, I thought it was desirable and important that we concern ourselves to the best of our abilities with projecting a different atmosphere, an atmosphere of cooperation, and with reducing tensions, not exacerbating them.
Question: Is his statement, "Netanyahu is now my friend," acceptable to you? Do you see him as your friend?
Prime Minister Netanyahu: He is the negotiating partner. We are negotiating with him. This is the reality which we have inherited from the previous government. I have said that we will honor the reality, and this is how I am acting. And I am trying - with the negotiating partners to achieve a better result for the State of Israel and the Jewish people. Certainly, we are insistent in the bargaining. And we have achieved very important and beneficial results in a settlement which was from the outset, in my view deficient. Have we arrived at a deeper friendship, heart and soul? I do not want to relate to such terms. My thinking is in a completely different direction.
(...) I would certainly want to see that relations between us as leaders, each of whom faces his own public, and conducts negotiations with the other, that we can hold substantive negotiations, and to the extent possible, hold friendly negotiations. I believe this was characteristic of the last part of the negotiations.
(...) We did not make this agreement. The previous government did. It undertook international commitments, not only in regard to the Arab world, but also in regard to the United States. And we inherited this reality. And from within this reality, we promised both before and after the elections that we will extract the maximum, and make the improvements. We did so with this agreement, in regard to the improvements which we put into the Hebron agreement, and they are significant. They do not solve all of the problems. They do not remove all of the dangers but they undoubtedly reduce them.
The second thing is that after the Hebron agreement, I ascribe great importance to the fact that we lengthened the timetable. There is no mad dashing here towards the 1967 lines. There is no dashing towards the 1967 lines, period. We will define the areas that we need for defensive security. And this has also been accepted by the Americans. It is Israel and no one else which will determine the scope of the [three] phases of the redeployment in Judea and Samaria. This is important.
(...)What is more important is that we for our part naturally oppose a [Palestinian] state, because experience [has shown] that with a state entity, it is difficult to cancel responsibilities. The same responsibilities which threaten the existence of the State of Israel are contained within the concept of a state, and therefore, I oppose the [concept of a Palestinian] state. We have proposed self-administration, even expanded autonomy, which could include many responsibilities which would be given to the Palestinians, to elect their representatives, institutions and leaders, and run their lives, but not to endanger ours.
(...) We will also insist that Jerusalem above all will not be divided, and that broad security areas which are necessary for the defense of the State remain, so that the Jewish people can settle in its historic land, in the cities of Judea and Samaria. These are the lines of our policy. With this policy, we are going forward toward the permanent settlement. And contrary to common belief, the Oslo Agreements leave the exact definition of the permanent settlement open. Each side can bring its positions, and I will bring ours.
Question: Regarding Syria, reports are again coming from Damascus that they were ready to conclude [an agreement] with us at Wye Plantation, but Rabins murder came and put end to it. Such reports have reached you. The second question is whether you intend to resume the negotiations with President Assad soon, and tell him that the Golan Heights as well are on the discussion table?
Prime Minister Netanyahu: No such reports have reached me, that an agreement was almost ready. This is incorrect. (...). Secondly, in regard to our position. Each side can bring its positions and claims to the negotiating table. Naturally, the claims occasionally contradict each other, for example on the issue of the Golan Heights. But I was quoted in the newspaper Le Figaro as if I had said that the Syrians may not raise their claims regarding the Golan Heights. I was amazed, because I remember well what I said. (...)
Question: Are you prepared, Mr. Prime Minister to discuss with them a withdrawal on the Golan Heights?
Prime Minister Netanyahu: I am not talking about a withdrawal on or a withdrawal from. I am saying something very simple. We will make our claims regarding the Golan Heights, and they will make theirs.
Question: Your claims have to do with the entire Golan Heights, or are you prepared for a territorial compromise on the Heights themselves?
Prime Minister Netanyahu: Why should I soften my claims? Has Assad softened his? Has he come toward us? Why are you so quick to concede? We will conduct the negotiations differently. We proved this in regard to Hebron. We proved this with regard to the agreements after Hebron, where we will define the scope of the redeployment and we also [secured] the issue of reciprocity.
Question: When will the negotiations be resumed?
Prime Minister Netanyahu: We are ready that the negotiations be resumed soon, even in the coming weeks, but it depends on the Syrians. We cannot force them to come to the negotiations.